Optimization of steam pretreatment of corn stover to enhance enzymatic digestibility
- 543 Downloads
Among the available agricultural byproducts, corn stover, with its yearly production of 10 million t (dry basis), is the most abundant promising raw material for fuel ethanol production in Hungary. In the United States, more than 216 million to fcorn stover is produced annually, of which a portion also could possibly be collected for conversion to ethanol. However, a network of lignin and hemicellulose protects cellulose, which is the major source of fermentable sugars in corn stover (approx 40% of the dry matter [DM]). Steam pretreatment removes the major part of the hemicellulose from the solid material and makes the cellulose more susceptible to enzymatic digestion. We studied 12 different combinations of reaction temperature, time, and pH during steam pretreatment. The best conditions (200°C, 5 min, 2% H2SO4) increased the enzymatic conversion (from cellulose to glucose) of corn stover more then four times, compared to untreated material. However, steam pretreatment at 190°C for 5 min with 2% sulfuric acid resulted in the highest overall yield of sugars, 56.1 g from 100 g of untreated material (DM), corresponding to 73% of the theoretical. The liquor following steam explosion was fermented using Saccharomyces cerevisiae to investigate the inhibitory effect of the pretreatment. The achieved ethanol yield was slightly higher than that obtained with a reference sugar solution. This demonstrates that baker's yeast could adapt to the pretreated liquor and ferment the glucose to ethanol efficiently.
Index EntriesCorn stover pretreatment steam explosion hydrolysis bioethanol
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Lyons, T. P., Kelsall, D., and Murtagh, J. eds. (1995), The, Alcohol Textbook, Nottingham University Press, Nothingam, UK.Google Scholar
- 4.Hungarian Central Statistical Office. (2001), Statistical Annual Reviews of the Hungarian Agriculture, Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
- 8.Brownell, H. H. and Saddler, J. N. (1984), Biotechnol. Bioeng. Symp. 14, 55–68.Google Scholar
- 9.Clark, T. A. and Mackie, K. L. (1987), J. Wood Chem. Technol. 7(3), 373–403.Google Scholar
- 10.Schmidt, A. S., Puls, J., and Bjerre, A. B., (1996), in Biomass for Energy and Environment Proceedings of the 9th European Bioenergy Conference vol. 3, Chartier, P., Ferrero, G. L., Henius, U. M., Hultberg, S., Sachau, J. and Wiinbland, M., eds. Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 1510–1515.Google Scholar
- 12.Saddler, J. N., Ramos, L. P., and Breuil, C. (1993), in Bioconversion of Forest and Agricultural Plant Residues, C.A.B. International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 73–91.Google Scholar
- 15.Stenberg, K., Tenborg, C., Galbe, M., and Zacchi G. (1998), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 71, 299–308.Google Scholar
- 19.Karr, W. E., Cool, L. G., Marriman, M. M., and Brink, D. L. (1991), J. Wood, Chem. Technol. 11, 447–463.Google Scholar
- 20.Eklund, R., Galbe, M., and Zacchi, G. (1988), J. Wood, Chem. Technol. 8(3), 379–392.Google Scholar
- 25.Tenborg, C., Stenberg, K., Galbe, M., Zacchi, G., Larsson, S., Palmquist, E., and Hahn-Hägerdal, B. (1998), Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 70–72, 3–15.Google Scholar